Why articles are retracted: a retrospective cross-sectional study of retraction notices at BioMed Central.

Elizabeth C Moylan, Maria K Kowalczuk
Author Information
  1. Elizabeth C Moylan: BioMed Central, London, UK. ORCID
  2. Maria K Kowalczuk: BioMed Central, London, UK. ORCID

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess why articles are retracted from BioMed Central journals, whether retraction notices adhered to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, and are becoming more frequent as a proportion of published articles.
DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of 134 retractions from January 2000 to December 2015.
RESULTS: 134 retraction notices were published during this timeframe. Although they account for 0.07% of all articles published (190���514 excluding supplements, corrections, retractions and commissioned content), the rate of retraction is rising. COPE guidelines on retraction were adhered to in that an explicit reason for each retraction was given. However, some notices did not document who retracted the article (eight articles, 6%) and others were unclear whether the underlying cause was honest error or misconduct (15 articles, 11%). The largest proportion of notices was issued by the authors (47 articles, 35%). The majority of retractions were due to some form of misconduct (102 articles, 76%), that is, compromised peer review (44 articles, 33%), plagiarism (22 articles, 16%) and data falsification/fabrication (10 articles, 7%). Honest error accounted for 17 retractions (13%) of which 10 articles (7%) were published in error. The median number of days from publication to retraction was 337.5���days.
CONCLUSIONS: The most common reason to retract was compromised peer review. However, the majority of these cases date to March 2015 and appear to be the result of a systematic attempt to manipulate peer review across several publishers. Retractions due to plagiarism account for the second largest category and may be reduced by screening manuscripts before publication although this is not guaranteed. Retractions due to problems with the data may be reduced by appropriate data sharing and deposition before publication. Adopting a checklist (linked to COPE guidelines) and templates for various classes of retraction notices would increase transparency of retraction notices in future.

Keywords

References

  1. Sci Eng Ethics. 2013 Mar;19(1):1-11 [PMID: 21761244]
  2. BMJ. 2013 Aug 07;347:f4796 [PMID: 23924655]
  3. BMC Res Notes. 2014 Nov 25;7:868 [PMID: 25471546]
  4. J Autoimmune Dis. 2008 Jul 29;5:4 [PMID: 18664249]
  5. J R Soc Med. 2008 Oct;101(10):507-14 [PMID: 18840867]
  6. Breast Cancer Res. 2012 Oct 31;14(5):402 [PMID: 23130551]
  7. PLoS One. 2014 Jan 22;9(1):e85846 [PMID: 24465744]
  8. J Med Ethics. 2011 Sep;37(9):567-70 [PMID: 21486985]
  9. N Engl J Med. 2015 Dec 17;373(25):2393-5 [PMID: 26488392]
  10. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Mar 13;31:21 [PMID: 22414203]
  11. PLoS One. 2013 Jul 08;8(7):e68397 [PMID: 23861902]
  12. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):296-7 [PMID: 9676689]
  13. BMJ. 2007 Oct 20;335(7624):806-8 [PMID: 17947786]
  14. Scoliosis. 2013 May 03;8(1):7 [PMID: 23668616]
  15. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 May 20;13:180 [PMID: 23688270]
  16. Nature. 2015 Apr 23;520(7548):429-31 [PMID: 25903611]
  17. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e44118 [PMID: 23115617]
  18. J Med Case Rep. 2009 Nov 13;3:122 [PMID: 19946539]
  19. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 16;109(42):17028-33 [PMID: 23027971]
  20. Retrovirology. 2014 Feb 06;11:16 [PMID: 24502228]
  21. J Cell Biol. 2004 Jul 5;166(1):11-5 [PMID: 15240566]
  22. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2014 Dec 15;15(2):151-4 [PMID: 25574267]
  23. BMC Evol Biol. 2015 Nov 05;15:243 [PMID: 26542699]
  24. PLoS One. 2009 May 29;4(5):e5738 [PMID: 19478950]
  25. Genet Vaccines Ther. 2012 Oct 23;10(1):10 [PMID: 23092510]
  26. Genome Biol. 2015 Jul 23;16:141 [PMID: 26204887]

MeSH Term

Biomedical Research
Cross-Sectional Studies
Ethics Committees
Guidelines as Topic
Peer Review
Publishing
Retraction of Publication as Topic
Retrospective Studies

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0articlesretractionnoticesguidelinespublishedretractionspeerreviewdataCOPEerrormisconductdueplagiarismpublicationretractedBioMedCentralwhetheradheredproportioncross-sectional1342015accountreasonHoweverlargestmajoritycompromised107%RetractionsmayreducedOBJECTIVES:assessjournalsCommitteePublicationEthicsbecomingfrequentDESIGN/SETTING:RetrospectiveanalysisJanuary2000DecemberRESULTS:timeframeAlthough007%190���514excludingsupplementscorrectionscommissionedcontentraterisingexplicitgivendocumentarticleeight6%othersunclearunderlyingcausehonest1511%issuedauthors4735%form10276%4433%2216%falsification/fabricationHonestaccounted1713%mediannumberdays3375���daysCONCLUSIONS:commonretractcasesdateMarchappearresultsystematicattemptmanipulateacrossseveralpublisherssecondcategoryscreeningmanuscriptsalthoughguaranteedproblemsappropriatesharingdepositionAdoptingchecklistlinkedtemplatesvariousclassesincreasetransparencyfutureretracted:retrospectivestudy

Similar Articles

Cited By (44)